Ho hum. I'm a little bored with all the x86 talk. Let's go crazy and talk about, um, the 970.

Given the kind of bandwidth that we're expecting with the 970, isn't it about time to dust off the Raycer rumours? Over in the Ars "Future CPU" thread our very own Programmer seems to be hinting at something along these lines.

In short: 970s are hungry for bandwidth; standard RAM will have trouble keeping these beasts fed, especially when packaged as duals; really really fast RAM is really really expensive; so let's find a way to streamline RAM and bus usage.

I might be remembering it wrong, but I thought that Yellow Box was the Cocoa layer of Rhapsody, both PowerPC and X86. Red Box was Win32 API's on X86 versions of Rhapsody, not PowerPC. And BlueBox was Classic (OS 8-9 API's) on PowerPC only, and would not be available for X86 versions of Rhapsody. So to break it down:

Apple had a hard time selling this to developers becouse they would have had to translate all their code to Object C to make it work in Yellow Box. Apple came up with the Carbon API set to address this concern, and make migration of code easier for developers. I could check on this info, but my developers release CD's of Rhapsody is at work.

Now, what would be great is if Apple put together a developers platform like Code Worrior, but added a module that would translate other languages (C+, C++) to object C, and verrify (debug) the Object C code based on the original language. It would need to handle C, C+, C++, Object C, and Java. This would give developers an easy path to get their legacy code into Object C while they were learning the language. Then add into it a way to compile the code for Win 32 as well, for a single "core code" development (I think it would still need to be modified for each platforms API's for optimal performance). Then sell it the program for Windows, Linux, and OS X at a price point under Code Worrior, yet with as much polish and as full of a feature set as Code Worrior. The problem, this is directly competing with the premier development package on the market.

It said on the spec sheet for the game cube that are confident it will dominate the next decade. Well, i guess they forgot about a little console that has a handful of games, ah, what's it called, uh, ah yes, PLAYSTATION. A 2.0ghz is fine, but the PS3 (which IBM is also making) is equal to 50 1.4ghz G4s (so I read ) as it does a teraflop. Add to that HUNDREDS of games and I don't see how the came cube is going to 'dominate' unless they mean M$'s Xbox defenition of dominate.

Should be nice either way tho, all I care about is M$ getting left behind in a strorm of dust so I can continue my evil laughter.

Console life spans are pretty long in general. The Game Cube was released less than 18 months ago right? From the 64 to the Cube Nintendo took at least 4 years between models, yet this spec sheet looks to be pretty "polished" for an internal only release. I would say that it is most likely a hoax, too optamistic and too short of a production run on the Game Cube. Nintendo may be pressured to push up development speeds, as Sony is apparently doing with the PS 3, but this seams very early to see even a mock up of a product.

Is that for real, or just some Maya designer's wet dream?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've spent a few minutes researching this, and it appears to be a fake. A very elaborate and sophisticated one, however. I'm impressed with the quality. Looks like real professional work. Lots of pointless work, it seems to me, unless it is something the artist is using for a portfolio.

I was suspicious when I saw the "blue-light DVD" drive. Sony is just coming out with those (due in April, IIRC) and they are extremely expensive at the moment. Not something for a mass-production game console for quite a while.

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei

What gives me pause about this, though, is the highly detailed specs. They're reasonable - not like someone just pulled them out of their butt - as though they are based on real hardware. What if Nintendo sees itself slowly fading under the onslaught of the PS2 and is looking for a way to grab the spotlight again and jump-start sales? This thing is fully compatible with the GC - no one would be out anything who had bought software.

This "Gekko II' chip would obviously be derived from the 970. Suppose that "The Age of the 970" is a carefully planned media event involving IBM, Apple, and Nintendo sometime this summer? IBM unveils its Blades, Apple unveils its new PowerMacs, and Nintendo unveils the Nexus, all at the same time. Big splash, lots of free publicity, etc., etc.

I have two problems with this scenario yet (I'm sure others of you have more):

1) The Sony Bluray is indeed very expensive - ~$4000. However, looking at its specs, Sony has thrown everything but the kitchen sink into this thing. I wonder how much of the cost is due to all the "bells and whistles" and price gouging of early-adopters, vs. actual cost of the basic drive.

The ONLY way I see this could work, then, is if Nintendo had some stripped-down, bare minimum custom drives built and were willing to take gas on the costs for a while to build their marketshare.

2) The image still bugs me - it just doesn't look real. The something about the textures, or surface sheen, or something that tells me that this is not a photograph of a real object.

And please, flamers, don't take any of this too seriously - I'm about 99.9% certain this is fake. I'm just doing a bit of thinking out loud.

Edit:
Another possibility is that the specs are for real, just the picture is fake (or a mock-up based on a verbal description). I would not be too shocked to see something with these specs from Nintendo before Christmas this year. Of course, I'd be a lot less shocked if nothing at all appeared before next Christmas.

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: TJM ]</p>

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the Universe" - Galileo Galilei

look at the last link on the specs, notice that the controller ports have a blue light on them, and in the center, just below the controller ports there is a green light. Now look in the reflection of the unit, these lights are not reflected.

Also, I would assume that any production console would have clear or smoked plastic window covering the DVD. If this were a real product, then there would be some highlights and reflections on this plastic interfearing with the view of the DVD.

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>HOLY CRAP... if I said it once I said it a million times. When you look at QE, you're looking at Raycer. There is no "chip" and there NEVER will be!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Easy Matsu, easy. No need to blow a blood vessel on this.

What I was repeating over on Ars was simply the persistent rumour (from several independent sources now) that Apple's next chipset will include a few vector signal processors. There is no other information about them, no indication about which team designed them (although the Raycer guys might be obvious candidates), and no information about what they'd be used for. Given what is generally known about VSPs in other hardware, however, it is likely that these would be useful for 3D graphics, 2D graphics, video compression/decompression, audio processing, and potentially some scientific applications (a la Apple's vDSP library). In Apple's current machines these things would make a lot of sense since the G4s can only use 1.3 GB/sec of bandwidth but the chipset has access to closer to 2.7 GB/sec thanks to the DDR333. To put such a thing into a 970-based machine implies to me that they must be fairly fast VSPs otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort and cost.

Hoax, nintendo will have to seriously think about their viability for yet another console. Sony and M$ can afford to lose a lot more per console than nintendo can. That means Nintendo has to wait longer before it can release a new console and probably still won't get the most powerful hardware for their troubles. They might make a Dreamcast, try to be first and have great games at a cheaper price, but even that didn't work for Sega. Though I tell you, the game world would look a lot different right now if the Dreamcast had shipped with a DVD playing drive.

In any event, nintendo is faced with the choice of changing their business now with money still in their pockets, or making a valiant last stand, and then changing their business model without any money in their pockets.

[quote]Originally posted by Matsu:
<strong>Hoax, nintendo will have to seriously think about their viability for yet another console. Sony and M$ can afford to lose a lot more per console than nintendo can. That means Nintendo has to wait longer before it can release a new console and probably still won't get the most powerful hardware for their troubles. They might make a Dreamcast, try to be first and have great games at a cheaper price, but even that didn't work for Sega. Though I tell you, the game world would look a lot different right now if the Dreamcast had shipped with a DVD playing drive.

In any event, nintendo is faced with the choice of changing their business now with money still in their pockets, or making a valiant last stand, and then changing their business model without any money in their pockets.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nintendo has already committed to another console after the GameCube for 2004.

Fake? With all the corporate logos and TMs everywhere? Someone is gonna get a cease and desist soon then. Companies don't like it when you use their logos for non artistic reasons. That presentation is not artistic but uses the name and logo in a buisness setting. They are stupid if it's a fake because a site is using it as if it's real.

Look at applle.com as an example. They don't use the Apple logo, they made their own as to avoid legal issues.

[quote]Originally posted by Tik:
<strong>...but then again, that leaves you with more time for f***ing your girlfriend.

You do have a girlfriend, right?</strong><hr></blockquote>

A wife and 2 kids actually! And what in the world does any of this have to do with business PCs, you know the ones that are bought, used for a couple years, and then new ones are bought? Again, marketshare.

If you don't understand such simple things, find a hobby like gardening or ant farming.

[quote]Originally posted by KidRed:
<strong>Fake? With all the corporate logos and TMs everywhere? Someone is gonna get a cease and desist soon then. Companies don't like it when you use their logos for non artistic reasons. That presentation is not artistic but uses the name and logo in a buisness setting. They are stupid if it's a fake because a site is using it as if it's real.

Look at applle.com as an example. They don't use the Apple logo, they made their own as to avoid legal issues.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Then stupid this artist is. This info sheet made the rounds of gaming sites a week or two ago and was declared to be a fake. Also, to my eyes the console itself looks like a render and I can't think of Nintendo ever showing off a render of a console rather than a physical prototype.

This VSP aspect to Apple's next chipset sounds exciting. An extra dimension to their hardware. iLife gets some hardware acceleration for sound, graphics, video et al. This could give PPC systems a real edge over x86 systems. A bit like the chipset goodies the old Amiga had over the Atari ST all those moons ago. It gives your machine that much more...personality, I'd call it... I'd like to think that Apple has put something of themselves into their next chipset. They need a compelling arguement for digital creators and for market share growth. It would be a bit of a let down if we weren't hearing talk of things like VSP. Apple would be missing an opportunity there... This is the chance to really put the boot into Intels long and narrow vs PPC's short and wide philosophy.

Given the care with which Jobs and Co. have navigated the developer, design, software, OS and retail requirements of the 'new' Apple...we even have the latest games! I would have thought that Jobs would be firing shotgun both barrels squarely at the performance issues...and is in line with this being something that's been in the works for almost four years. ie just after he came back to power at Apple. ie something they wanted to get just right. It would be uncharacteristic considering all the other pieces in the puzzle.

Tantalizing.

I'd hope for something...some morsel to come from the the WWDC. It's eerie, but we're hearing absoutely nothing about 'X'.3!!! Talk about pluggin' the leaks with silicon!

I think Apple could stand to lose a couple of months worth of lost sales. Sooner of later, Apple are going to have to bite the bullet and announce the 970/next plateau of PPC performance...and when they do...I'm guessing they'll have a 'bit' of G4 'power'Mac inventory on their hands.

(Heck, sales dry up a couple of months in the run up to an Expo like Macworld New York anyhow, huh?)

Overall, I'm feeling more and more optimistic.

Lemon Bon Bon

We do it because Steve Jobs is the supreme defender of the Macintosh faith, someone who led Apple back from the brink of extinction just four years ago. And we do it because his annual keynote is...

A wife and 2 kids actually! And what in the world does any of this have to do with business PCs, you know the ones that are bought, used for a couple years, and then new ones are bought? Again, marketshare.

If you don't understand such simple things, find a hobby like gardening or ant farming.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yup.
Dell gets 15% of it's revenues from it's Home division. That leaves 85% for it's Business division. Gateway gets almost all it's revenues from Home users. Look where it's at now.

Then stupid this artist is. This info sheet made the rounds of gaming sites a week or two ago and was declared to be a fake. Also, to my eyes the console itself looks like a render and I can't think of Nintendo ever showing off a render of a console rather than a physical prototype.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No doubt it's cgi, hell the majority of Apple's stuff is, go look at the press photos. He better hope Neintendo can't trace it back to him, we all know what Apple would do.

What I was repeating over on Ars was simply the persistent rumour (from several independent sources now) that Apple's next chipset will include a few vector signal processors. There is no other information about them, no indication about which team designed them (although the Raycer guys might be obvious candidates), and no information about what they'd be used for. Given what is generally known about VSPs in other hardware, however, it is likely that these would be useful for 3D graphics, 2D graphics, video compression/decompression, audio processing, and potentially some scientific applications (a la Apple's vDSP library). In Apple's current machines these things would make a lot of sense since the G4s can only use 1.3 GB/sec of bandwidth but the chipset has access to closer to 2.7 GB/sec thanks to the DDR333. To put such a thing into a 970-based machine implies to me that they must be fairly fast VSPs otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort and cost.</strong><hr></blockquote>

&lt;wild speculation mode&gt;
In a way it sounds kinda likely that ALL future macs will have something like this, and that OS X will depend heavily on it. That would help protect apple from illegal "cloning". Bear in mind that,depending on IBM's plans for the 970 of course, it MIGHT soon be possible to get computers with 970's in them from other vendors than apple. and possibly cheaper. Would a measly "protection chip" keep people from making their own home brew clones? not for long.Those things tend to get cracked in no time. Apple needs something on the mobo that OS X is really 'functionally' dependent on. This thingy will serve the double purpose of also incresing performance in some way in order to get the most from the RnD. All this would mean that if you manage to actually get X running on a non apple machine, it won't run that well, so that you'll still get more performance/$ from Apple gear.&lt;/wild speculation mode&gt;

[quote]Originally posted by Stoo:
<strong>But how big is the hacked hardware market? How many Linux XBoxes are there? I suspect it isn't that big and that there's enough proprietary hardware/lawyers to stop it.</strong><hr></blockquote>

This is more about hacked software than hacked hardware. I doubt apple would even try to stop people from running linux on apple boxes. Also, this is about exactly the kind of proprietary hardware/lawyers (it would be patented tech, of course) you're mentioning. Only, It would let apple get some extra mileage out of it, in the form of performance.

The real problem is the PR nightmare that could come with it,(regarding legacy hardware for example) if apple don't play their cards right.

&lt;wild speculation mode&gt;
In a way it sounds kinda likely that ALL future macs will have something like this, and that OS X will depend heavily on it. That would help protect apple from illegal "cloning". Bear in mind that,depending on IBM's plans for the 970 of course, it MIGHT soon be possible to get computers with 970's in them from other vendors than apple. and possibly cheaper. Would a measly "protection chip" keep people from making their own home brew clones? not for long.Those things tend to get cracked in no time. Apple needs something on the mobo that OS X is really 'functionally' dependent on. This thingy will serve the double purpose of also incresing performance in some way in order to get the most from the RnD. All this would mean that if you manage to actually get X running on a non apple machine, it won't run that well, so that you'll still get more performance/$ from Apple gear.&lt;/wild speculation mode&gt;</strong><hr></blockquote>

Keep in mind that other people, like Terra Soft and Eyetech/Amiga, already make and sell commodity non-Apple G3 hardware. These don't boot MacOS, mostly because MacOS is dependent on Open Firmware for now. It's surely possible to get Darwin booting on one of those machines, at which point OS X becomes available too, but of course you still end up with a $800-900 machine (sans monitor) that's whomped by a $1000 eMac.

Compared to what's available in the commodity PPC world, Apple surely isn't overcharging their users. IBM, on the other hand, is. At $8,805 for a 375MHz 604e workstation, they take home the crown for overpiced machines. (Knock off $1500 for the AIX license and you still have one expensive machine.) They call this an ``entry technical workstation''. Perhaps they accidentaly duplicated the 8?

Also remember that such a protection scheme would lock out all their current user base! Apple drew the line in the sand at the G3 due to performance reasons with OS X (especially 10.2 - I just installed 10.1 on a PowerTower Pro 225, and it's SLOW, but works). However, I doubt they have any intention of ``un-supporting'' these machines for many years to come. OS X makes supporting older hardware rediculously easy through Mach-O's unique ability to house multiple architectures in the same binary. Even Sun still ships Solaris 9 as a 32/64-bit OS that installs and works on a 12-year-old SPARCStation 20.

(edit - point out compatibility)

[ 03-05-2003: Message edited by: Anonymous Karma ]</p>

All these worlds are belong to us, except Europa. Take off no zigs there.

This is more about hacked software than hacked hardware. I doubt apple would even try to stop people from running linux on apple boxes. Also, this is about exactly the kind of proprietary hardware/lawyers (it would be patented tech, of course) you're mentioning. Only, It would let apple get some extra mileage out of it, in the form of performance.

The real problem is the PR nightmare that could come with it,(regarding legacy hardware for example) if apple don't play their cards right.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, the hardware side of it sounds more plausible to me. I have suspected for some time that IBM will do a kind of a CHRP II when the 970 hits general release. In other words, mass-produced 970 mobos for linux boxen plus a reference design.

If IBM does this then Apple would be foolish not to differentiate their hardware in some fundamental way.